RE: Mapping files?

At 11:04 21.02.2003 -0500, Michel Biezunski wrote:
> I am in favor of what you call "unintentionally hijacking topic maps".
> I think this is exactly what is needed for making topic maps fly
> and get widely used.
>
> Although we tried to develop a model which would be simple and
> straightforward, the remarks on this list lead me to think that
> the Topic Maps model as currently existing and embodied in the
> XTM/HyTm syntaxes might be *too* rich and *too* complex to
> correspond to various needs which would be happier with a lighter
> definition of topic maps. That for me is a strong argument in
> favor of a modular perspective on topic maps, which would not
> contradict or invalidate anything that currently exists, but
> would make the learning curve simpler.

I agree with everything you say. And, actually, I think Kal does,
too. We should definitely encourage simple applications of topic
maps.

What we should react to is when people using the term "topic maps",
either unintentionally, or wilfully (simply because it is "in"),
to describe applications that patently have nothing to do with
topic maps as defined in ISO 13250. Jon Udell *could* have
presented his ideas and the work he has done in the context of
a standard. This would have been an advantage to the topic map
community (obviously), but I think also an advantage to him as
a populariser of new technology, and a service to his readers.

Kal is right to point out that it was a pity that he didn't do
so.

Then again, I guess that's the kind of thing we have to expect
as topic maps become more mainstream :-)

Have a good weekend, everyone!

Steve

--
Steve Pepper, Chief Executive Officer 
<pepper-76mms6M3oqTR7s880joybQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Convenor, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34/WG3  Editor, XTM (XML Topic Maps)
Ontopia AS, Waldemar Thranes gt. 98, N-0175 Oslo, Norway.
http://www.ontopia.net/ phone: +47-23233080 GSM: +47-90827246